What does it mean to wield unchecked power? How do we control it? And what responsibility comes with that? Those are the considerations raised in the latest offering in one of the movie industry’s most storied action-adventure franchises, “X-men: Apocalypse.”

Set in 1983, 10 years after the series’ previous installment, “X-men: Days of Future Past” (2014), the film follows a band of mutant beings who possess special powers (and who are often discriminated against for being different, viewed by many as a threat to public safety). While the plot is too complicated to detail here, it essentially follows the X-men in their battle against a resurrected being, En Sabah Nur (Oscar Isaac), who draws upon an array of special abilities that he has amassed through multiple incarnations to fulfill his personal agenda.

Led by the mutants’ mentor, Prof. Charles Xavier (James McAvoy), the X-men (Nicholas Hoult, Jennifer Lawrence, Evan Peters, Sophie Turner, Tye Sheridan, Kodi Smit-McPhee) and a courageous CIA agent (Rose Byrne) match wits with their nemesis, who literally looks to bring about what his new name embodies – the Apocalypse. And, to ensure that he succeeds in this nefarious quest, Apocalypse recruits the assistance of four jaded, impressionable mutants (Michael Fassbender, Ben Hardy, Alexandra Shipp, Olivia Munn) who possess powers comparable to their heroic counterparts, setting up an epic battle for the fate of the world.

As in many action-adventure offerings, themes of facing fears, living heroically and tapping into our innate courage permeate the narrative, principles that are integral to the conscious creation process, the means by which we manifest the reality we experience through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents. But, in this film, the story also delves deeply into another crucial concept – the management of our personal power and the responsibility that comes with it.

Personal power is by no means unfamiliar turf for the “X-men” franchise. In this film’s predecessor, for example, the narrative plumbed the notion of claiming our personal power. In this release, that idea is carried further, following the exploits of characters who have claimed their power but now face the challenge of managing it (and doing so responsibly).

In this regard, the film is thus a metaphor for a fundamental challenge we all face. Power is something we each possess and in vast, untapped reserves. Indeed, as author Marianne Williamson observed in A Return To Love: Reflections on the Principles of A Course in Miracles, “Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.” What matters, however, is what we do with our power, something that becomes readily apparent in the film – and in the actions of both the heroes and the villains.

Apocalypse, for instance, believes that mankind has poisoned the planet and needs to be eliminated. Wiping the slate clean, he contends, will offer an opportunity for a fresh start, one that he asserts will bring about a glorious new future. However, while it may be true that humanity has done its share of despoiling the earth, and no matter how appealing a new beginning might seem, does that mean we should necessarily scrap what we’ve got? That’s particularly important to consider when we realize we have it within us to bring about such a sweeping outcome. (If you doubt we possess such power, think about what we’d reap if we allowed ourselves to engage in a nuclear exchange.)

As Apocalypse wreaks his havoc, the X-men wrestle with how to respond. Given the strength of their adversary’s will (and the beliefs and power that back it up), a formidable response is obviously called for. But how far should the mutants go? How much of their own power should they exercise in thwarting his efforts? If they hold back, they run the risk of letting Apocalypse succeed. However, if they unleash everything they have, they come perilously close to matching the unchecked actions of their opponent, moves that, at best, could be viewed as hypocritical or, at worst, could result in devastation equal to or worse than that inflicted by their foe. These are thorny questions, to be sure, yet they’re considerations the X-men ultimately must address – just as we’re all likely to have to do at some point in our lives.

This naturally raises the question, “So what are we to do in circumstances like this?” For starters, we must consider the responsibility that comes with our power. As recent films like “The Lobster” and “Money Monster” illustrate, just because we have the power to accomplish a particular objective doesn’t mean we necessarily should seek to manifest it. Apocalypse obviously needs to address this, but so do the X-men – including those on both sides of the duel in this film. This is especially true for Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), one of the good guys, a psychic gifted with incomparable creative powers that are equally capable of materializing glorious outcomes or unspeakable destruction.

In managing her power, Jean (like all of us) must ask herself how far should she go. But how much is too much (or too little)? That’s where she (and we) must look inward to assess our beliefs and intents, a process in which we should employ honesty and integrity. If we do that (and follow through accordingly), the answers (and results) will come to us. However, we must be careful to avoid the pitfalls of allowing fear, doubt or contradiction to come into play; if we do, we may well be disappointed with what we get.

If examining our personal beliefs doesn’t provide the answer we’re looking for, then perhaps we should consider expanding the scope of our analysis, especially when dealing with big issues like the fate of the world. In situations such as this, we should bear in mind that large-scale manifestations are co-creations, materializations that we bring forth with the assistance of others. Taking it upon ourselves to decide the destiny of our peers can be problematic (especially if it results in their annihilation), so, under these circumstances, we should be willing to take a step back and consider the ramifications of our beliefs and their manifested progeny. Our future – and that of the planet we call home – might depend on it.

Those who might be tempted to dismiss “X-men: Apocalypse” as little more than just a piece of summer fluff need to take a closer look; they’ll find there’s a lot more going on beneath the surface of its dazzling special effects. This flat-out winner features an engaging narrative, a thoughtful, well-executed script, terrific action sequences and enough overall variety to keep it interesting without becoming overburdened or unduly convoluted. It’s truly refreshing to see a sci-fi adventure that actually packs some meaningful meat into its plot instead of relying on things just blowing up for two hours (though the visuals are outstanding, especially the 3-D effects, which are some of the best I’ve seen using this cinematic technology). Fans of the franchise will definitely love it, and viewers who fancy their blockbusters with some depth will likely find it worthwhile, too.

For those in need of an excellent example of “Think before you act,” then this is the movie to see. Its exploration of the respect we must have for the power each of us possesses is crucial to avoid falling into the trap of allowing ourselves to be governed by our heads rather than our hearts, a pitfall that, if not heeded, could trigger our own personal Apocalypse.

It’s a pretty safe bet to say that most of us have dreams we would like to see realized. But how many of us actually follow through even partially, let alone at all? Perhaps it’s because we don’t know how to make them happen. Or maybe we don’t have the gumption for what it takes. But perhaps it’s a matter of our outlook, the set of beliefs we hold about the viability of our dreams and how they can be made manifest. Those in search of inspiration on this front may find what they’re looking for in the new fact-based comedy-drama, “Joy.”

Based on the lives of several successful women entrepreneurs (most notably inventor and cable television product sales mogul Joy Mangano), the film follows the misadventures, exploits and accomplishments of a composite character simply named Joy (Jennifer Lawrence). When viewers first meet the film’s heroine, she lives a harried and frustrating life. As the divorced mother of two, she works a thankless job as an airline ticket counter agent, barely eking out a living to support her largely dysfunctional family. Besides her two kids, Joy shares a cramped house with her divorced, soap opera-addicted mother, Terry (Virginia Madsen), a socially challenged recluse who almost never leaves her bedroom; her ne’er-do-well ex-husband, Tony (Édgar Ramírez), an aspiring but mostly unsuccessful lounge singer who lives in the basement; and her recently arrived father, Rudy (Robert De Niro), a genuinely loving and supportive influence in Joy’s life but who, thanks to a history of failed relationships, has now been forced into sharing the basement with his former son-in-law. In addition to the challenges of her crazy housemates, Joy also has to contend with the routine wranglings of her malicious half-sister, Peggy (Elisabeth Röhm), with whom she has had an ongoing, inexplicably spiteful rivalry ever since childhood.

But Joy is not without her supporters either. First there’s Joy’s childhood friend, Jackie (Dascha Polanco), who has faithfully stood by her through the years, even when things were at their worst. And then there’s the bright spot of Joy’s household, Mimi (Diane Ladd), her adoring grandmother (and the film’s narrator), who sees great things for her granddaughter (even when she can’t envision them for herself).

The ability to envision those grand accomplishments, however, is precisely what Mimi believes will be Joy’s ticket to success and abundance. She sees sparks of this in her granddaughter’s ingenuity for coming up with ideas for simple, inventive products that fulfill important consumer needs and hold the potential to make piles of cash. But, given Joy’s frantic schedule and lack of funds, she seldom has time or money to devote to these pursuits. That all changes one day, however, when a little domestic accident gives rise to an idea that proves to be the seminal brainchild for launching a new career.

While on a sailing excursion with her family on the boat of Rudy’s latest love interest, Trudy (Isabella Rossellini), a wealthy widow, a wine bottle falls and breaks, spilling its contents and shattering glass all over the deck. Joy volunteers to clean up the mess, but, while manually wringing the mop head, she cuts her hand by glass shards that became embedded in the cloth. As painful as this is, however, the incident gives her an idea for creating a new type of self-wringing mop.

Not long thereafter, Joy develops a prototype and seeks backers, like Trudy, to finance her efforts. Jackie, Rudy and Tony lend their support, too, running interference against detractors like Peggy, who repeatedly snipes at her sibling, claiming that she knows nothing about running a business. So, with such tangible, intangible and backhanded assistance, Joy forges ahead, finding sources to create molds and supply materials for her product.

With her new Miracle Mop in hand, Joy begins marketing her wares but without much success. Her fates change dramatically, however, when Tony introduces Joy to an old friend, Neil Walker (Bradley Cooper), an influential programming executive at an up-and-coming powerhouse in the cable television home shopping industry, QVC. As an enterprise featuring such high-profile spokespeople as Joan Rivers (Melissa Rivers), QVC and its principals look upon an upstart like Joy with much skepticism. But, when Neil is sold on the product’s capabilities, he relents and decides to give Joy a shot. Thus begins a rollercoaster ride that Joy never could have imagined, one involving phenomenal success, devastating setbacks, internal family squabbles, fraud and personal heartache. But it also marks Joy’s emergence as a personal dynamo, a true force to be reckoned with, one who many underestimated – and very much at their peril.

Living our dreams is something that most of us hope to realize for ourselves, but many times we’re at a loss to figure out how to do so. When “life happens to us,” we often lose our focus, frequently becoming discouraged, unable to make much, if any, headway on reaching our goals. However, all need not be lost, especially if we make judicious use of the conscious creation process, the means by which we manifest the reality we experience in all of its various aspects.

The core of this practice rests with our beliefs, the driving force in shaping our existence. They provide the conceptual template for our reality, and, when they are coupled with the energy provided by our divine collaborator (the Universe or whatever comparable name best suits you), they spring forth into tangible form. But, to make the process work to our liking, it’s important that we identify what those beliefs are. And, for those with an inherently creative bent, it’s crucial that we identify those beliefs with specificity to make the most of the process.

When inventive types (like Joy) seek to make use of the process, they must be able to envision the output of their ideas to bring them into being. This often involves thinking outside the box and pushing the limits of their creativity. Some might see this as an overwhelming task, but, for those who are able to conceptualize the solutions necessary to address their particular problems, the beliefs – and their physically manifested progeny – frequently follow.

The more one is able to embrace the foregoing, the more likely one is able to get the desired results. This is where the concept of faith comes into play. By imbuing our conceptions with an unshakable sense of certainty, we develop a greater sense of confidence in the viability of our ideas and the ability to see them realized as tangible materializations. And, the stronger the faith, the better the outcome.

There are several steps we can take to enhance our effectiveness at this. For instance, following our intuition can pay big dividends, because it provides clues about what we should consider pursuing in the formation of our beliefs. Joy picks up on this, for example, when the idea for the mop comes to her. She sees the potential and subsequently forms the beliefs necessary for bringing it into physical existence.

Intuition (and the beliefs that arise from it) can also show us what to avoid by birthing creations that depict what doesn’t serve us. In Joy’s case, this becomes apparent when she looks at her mother’s soap opera addiction. The show that Terry incessantly watches features a cast of pathetic, squabbling, self-serving characters (Susan Lucci, Laura Wright, Alexander Cook) reminiscent of Joy’s own family. Segments from the program are intercut with incidents from Joy’s everyday existence, paralleling her own reality and reminding her of what she doesn’t want out of life.

Mirrors like this are unmistakable, prompting us to identify what’s wrong and what needs to be changed. For Joy, they trigger memories of her younger self (Isabelle Crovetti-Cramp), an ambitious, enterprising young girl who believed she could do great things, like create marvelous inventions, and those flashbacks help to set her on a new course. And, when those insights are reinforced with Mimi’s supremely confident encouragement, Joy is able to adjust her prevailing outlook, enabling her to get back on track with her plans, to get back to those original beliefs about herself and what she wanted to do with her life.

In part successful materialization also depends on identifying the synchronicities that help foster our creations. These meaningful coincidences, which also spring forth from our beliefs, provide the catalytic sparks that prompt new rounds of more defined beliefs that further the manifestation process. For example, had Joy not recognized the opportunity available to her when the wine bottle broke on Trudy’s boat deck, she might not have invented her mop – or reaped any of the rewards that flowed from that.

These simple concepts are important for all of us, but budding entrepreneurs and inventors may find them particularly useful. They provide the inspiration we need to make things happen. And the example set by Joy just might be the impetus for helping us get our own plans off the ground.

While watching “Joy,” I couldn’t help but repeatedly remark to myself, “What unusual subject matter for a movie.” Given Hollywood’s current penchant for recycling story lines, unduly extending movie franchises and needlessly launching reboots, I appreciate the attempt at originality, something director David O. Russell has come to be known for, as seen in movies like “American Hustle” (2013) and “Flirting with Disaster” (1996). And its inspiring ideas are truly helpful for those seeking to live their dreams and to chart a path to success.

However, to make a movie such as this work, it has to fire on all cylinders, which, unfortunately, “Joy” does not do consistently. The film works well in a number of ways (acting, casting, inspirational themes) but drops the ball in others (writing, pacing, staying on point). Had the script and film editing gone through some additional tweaking, this might have been a truly terrific movie, but, as it stands now, it’s merely above average. With that said, however, be sure to give sufficient props to Jennifer Lawrence, Isabella Rossellini and Virginia Madsen for great acting turns in their respective performances.

Despite its shortcomings, the film has garnered a modicum of attention in this year’s awards competitions. Thus far it has earned two Golden Globe Award nominations for Lawrence’s stellar performance and as best comedy film. It has also captured comparable recognition in the Critics Choice Award contest, grabbing three nominations for best comedy film and two nods for Lawrence as best actress overall and best actress in a comedy.

When life doesn’t pan out as hoped for, it’s easy to become discouraged. We may reconcile ourselves to our circumstances, giving up on ever seeing our dreams come true. But sometimes simple adjustments in our thinking can bring about significant changes, as Joy’s experience illustrates. And who knows, if we go about it correctly, those changes just might prove to be the kind that allow us to mop up the rewards.

Mutant mentor Professor X (Patrick Stewart, foreground) and his former adversary, Magneto (Ian McKellen, background), lead a band of specially gifted colleagues in seeking a solution for ending a horrific planet-wide war in the terrific new sci-fi blockbuster, “X-Men: Days of Future Past.” Photo by Alan Markfield, courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.

Turning away from our personal power can have dire consequences. By failing to embrace and act upon our natural talents and make use of them in our daily lives, we run the risk of leading an unfulfilling existence and failing to live up to our potential as sentient beings. And, in some cases, the fallout can be even worse, carrying widespread ramifications that affect the well-being of those around us, if not the entire planet, a scenario explored in the new summertime sci-fi blockbuster, “X-Men: Days of Future Past.”

Life in the near future is pretty dismal in the world of the X-Men, “mutant” beings who possess a variety of special capabilities that set them apart from their fellow humans. Their abilities represent the next step in the species’ evolution, but not everyone is comfortable with them or their unique faculties, a prejudice stretching back many decades. In fact, that long-standing fundamental distrust was responsible for spawning an enduring war that now plagues the planet, making the earth an exceedingly dark place. With the development of mutant-seeking robotic weapons known as Sentinels in the 1970s, the globe was plunged into a hellish nightmare pitting humans and the evolved outcasts against one another, a battle that has relentlessly raged into the present.

To combat these horrific conditions, a band of X-Men takes refuge in a Chinese monastery to devise a plan for ending the conflict once and for all. The group is led by one-time mutant mentor Professor X (Patrick Stewart) and his former adversary, Magneto (Ian McKellen). They seek resolution to a war that started in response to the murder of the Sentinels’ developer, Dr. Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage), in 1973. Trask was killed at the hands of a mutant named Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), who was outraged that he had used her peers’ DNA to develop weapons capable of specifically targeting them. Trask’s murder so frightened the human population of the mutant “threat” that his weapons program, which initially received tepid support, was given the green light with the official blessing of its chief proponent, President Richard Nixon (Mark Comacho).

In considering possible remedies to their plight, the X-Men draw upon the insights of Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page), a mutant capable of

Weapons developer Dr. Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage, foreground) works on creating specialized robotic technology aimed at targeting and wiping out the mutant “threat” against humanity in director Bryan Singer’s “X-Men: Days of Future Past.” Photo by Alan Markfield, courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.

peering into and guiding the minds of others. She proposes sending the consciousness of one of her fellow mutants across time to a point before Trask’s murder in hopes of preventing it, thereby changing the time line – and all of the subsequent fallout that came from his death. As plausible as the plan sounds, however, it’s fraught with risks, and only one of the X-Men appears up to the challenge – Wolverine (Hugh Jackman).

For the mission to succeed, Wolverine must stop Mystique from carrying out her plan. But, as daunting as that task might be, he’s advised that he need not act alone; his colleagues encourage him to seek help from their younger selves. Professor X and Magneto thus inform Wolverine how he can contact their youthful counterparts (James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender, respectively).

However, to make the plan work, there are a few hitches to overcome. First, since Wolverine will be meeting his contemporaries’ younger selves at a point before he met them in the current time line, he’ll have to convince them of who he is, how he knows them and what he’s doing there, objectives that may be much easier said than done. And, second, the scenario into which Wolverine will step is set to play out at a precarious point in human history – at the time of the signing of the Paris Peace Accords ending the Vietnam War. With the world on edge over this uneasy truce, it wouldn’t take much to set off a panic – one with the potential to carry on many years into the future (circumstances that the X-Men have since become all too familiar with).

Wolverine (Hugh Jackman, center), one of a band of specially gifted beings known as the X-Men, travels across time in an effort to prevent a decades-long war in the gripping new action adventure, “X-Men: Days of Future Past.” Photo by Alan Markfield, courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.

With the fate of the world hanging in the balance, Wolverine embarks on his mission, hopeful that the present he knows can be wiped out by changes to the past. His success, however, will depend on his effectiveness at convincing himself – and others – that a different path to the future is possible. But it’s a path that’s only attainable by those who believe that it can unfold.

The belief in the possible, of course, is what makes the conscious creation process work. And, in carrying out his quest, Wolverine must change the hearts, minds and beliefs of those who are chiefly responsible for bringing into being what will eventually transpire.

Several key belief components must be put in place if the X-Men’s plan is to work. Foremost among them is the notion that the past can be rewritten, a significant challenge given what many of us perceive to be the persistence and infallibility of memory. Many of us see the past as fixed and unchangeable. But memories, like virtually any of our other thoughts, are belief-based and, consequently, susceptible to alteration.

For example, think about how we remember a particular event. Many times we’re positively certain that we recall exactly how it played out. But, when we uncover evidence that our recollection may be “faulty” (evoked by tangible artifacts associated with the event, the accounts of others, etc.), we may also find that we need to reassess what really happened. Such exercises change not only our perceptions of what occurred, but also the nature of the circumstances associated with them, effectively altering what we believed to have actually transpired. That knowledge thus changes us in our present, because the path that got us to where we are now has also been amended. And a changed present thereby opens up the door to an alternate future, one that may be very different from what we might have anticipated would unfold going forward. Expected hardships, for example, may simply remain probabilities that fail to materialize, because they don’t have the required “temporal support” behind them to make them manifest.

These notions are not just pie-in-the-sky New Age hype, either. In addition to their applicability in a conscious creation context,

In an effort to stave off a protracted planetary conflict, time-traveling X-Man Wolverine (Hugh Jackman, left) seeks assistance from the younger selves of two of his future colleagues, Professor X (James McAvoy, right) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender, center), in “X-Men: Days of Future Past.” Photo by Alan Markfield, courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.

the thinking underlying these ideas is also part and parcel of the theories driving quantum physics. So the X-Men’s proposed plan is thus more than just philosophical or fictional conjecture; its plausibility has a basis firmly rooted in science, strange though the idea may seem to the skeptical.

But embracing beliefs about the viability of changing the past are not the only convictions that need to come into play in this story. The X-Men of the past must take a cue from their future counterparts and learn to believe in themselves. To do less would invite trouble, as their future selves come to find out in extremely painful ways.

As mutant beings, the X-Men of the 1970s represent a distinct minority, one that’s mistrusted by society at large and often made the object of scorn. However, like any other minority, they must learn to step forward, courageously and with integrity, to live their lives as their true selves. Indeed, as virtually every other persecuted group has discovered throughout history, the mutants must learn how to assert their identity and insist upon their rightful, inclusionary place in society. Unfortunately, these initiatives didn’t receive adequate attention when the X-Men first appeared on the scene. Instead, they were encouraged to keep a low profile, an ill-advised attempt at placating the feelings of a prejudiced majority. But, as other minority groups have discovered for themselves, such steps simply don’t work in the long run; their implementation often leads to second-class status – or worse.

Wolverine’s journey into the past thus must also be aimed at helping his youthful colleagues foster beliefs about having the courage to be themselves, no matter how much they might be perceived to be “outcasts” by the rest of society. He must encourage them to have faith in the validity of their powers and their ability to freely exercise them for the betterment of society, no matter what others may think. This is a particularly crucial concern for Professor X’s younger self, given the important mentoring role he’s eventually destined to play, not to mention his particular efforts in helping Wolverine rewrite the time line. And, by extension, it’s also an inspiring metaphor for the members of any minority group seeking to attain the respect and recognition they truly deserve.

Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), a mutant seeking vengeance for atrocities committed against her peers, holds the key to earth’s future in director Bryan Singer’s “X-Men: Days of Future Past.” Photo by Alan Markfield, courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.

At first glance, “X-Men: Days of Future Past” may seem like an odd selection when it comes to cinematic explorations of such heady issues. However, despite the story’s comic book roots, there’s nothing at all silly or cartoonish about this offering. The film is an excellent showcase for the metaphysical notions it examines, and it does so with a degree of maturity and sophistication not often found among pictures of this genre. Those who would dismiss it simply on the grounds of its pedigree will miss out on a fine philosophical treatise.

The picture is a flat-out winner on all fronts. Its terrific special effects provide ample visual appeal, but the film does not rely on them to carry the plot. It features an intelligently conceived storyline, with a top-notch script to back it up, one full of thoughtfulness and whimsical humor (especially in the ʼ70s flashback sequences). And, even though this is the seventh film in the “X-Men” franchise, one need not know its history to grasp the story here; sufficient background is provided to inform new viewers without such information becoming excessively intrusive.

What’s perhaps most impressive, however, is the picture’s exceptional acting, a definite cut above what’s seen in most action films. The truly stellar cast brings these characters to life as believable individuals, not as live action versions of comic book figures. That’s quite an accomplishment, but, when one considers who the filmmakers had to work with, it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

Perhaps the only drawback of the film is its underdeveloped use of 3D photography. As with many of today’s releases that employ

Past and present collide when the current self of mutant mentor Professor X (Patrick Stewart, right) confronts his younger counterpart (James McAvoy, left) about being willing to make use of his special powers in the entertaining and enlightening new blockbuster, “X-Men: Days of Future Past.” Photo by Alan Markfield, courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.

this cinematic technology, the picture simply doesn’t make use of it as effectively as it might have, which is a disappointment, to be sure. However, this is a minor shortcoming in the greater scheme of things and shouldn’t deter viewers from enjoying what is an otherwise-terrific piece of filmmaking.

Seizing upon our power – or our failure to do so – has consequences that we seldom see forthcoming. Unless and until we become more prescient in this regard, we would be wise to make use of the talents we’ve drawn to ourselves (after all, if we weren’t meant to have them, then why would we have attracted them in the first place?). “Days of Future Past” makes this point plainly apparent, showing us how to lead lives of purpose and fulfillment, without succumbing to timidity or regret. It shows us not to be afraid of who we are, what we create or the realities we manifest for ourselves, for, if we courageously follow those pursuits, we’ll all surely have a future to look forward to.

Getting what we want out of life often takes considerable moxie. But all the chutzpah in the world won’t matter a damn if it’s not properly backed up with traits like personal integrity and sound intent. That can be a difficult lesson to learn, too, as a coterie of colorful characters finds out all too well in the new, fact-based, period piece comedy, “American Hustle.”

The plot of “American Hustle” is rather complicated, and revealing it in detail would give away too much of the story. In a nutshell, however, the picture is loosely based on the 1978 covert FBI operation known as Abscam, which sought to expose corruption among political power brokers, including members of the House of Representatives and a U.S. Senator, with the aid of professional con artists.

In this fictionalized account, the film follows the exploits of con man Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) and his partner-in-crime/sometimes-lover Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams). Together they routinely and convincingly scam desperate borrowers in search of hard-to-find cash. Their racket is quite successful, too, until they cross paths with FBI agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper), who nabs the duo in an undercover sting. DiMaso makes them an interesting offer, however; he’s willing to trade jail time for their assistance as consultants on a high-profile white collar crime operation he’s planning. Irving and Sydney agree to the overzealous, opportunistic agent’s offer, but, as things get under way, none of them can possibly envision what awaits them – especially when the stakes spiral wildly out of control.

What ensues is an elaborate con game in which everyone hustles everyone else, both in “business” matters and in romantic dealings. This applies not only to the scheme’s three principals but also to virtually everyone else connected with it. This tawdry cast of supporting characters includes Irving’s brassy, loud-mouthed, neurotic wife, Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence); the well-meaning and well-connected but woefully naïve mayor of Camden, New Jersey, Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner); DiMaso’s mild-mannered but overly officious boss, Stoddard Thorson (Louis C.K.); a politically ambitious federal prosecutor, Anthony Amado (Alessandro Nivola); a Latino FBI agent, Paco Hernandez, who feebly poses as a phony Middle Eastern sheikh (Michael Peña); a pair of mob-connected casino operators (Robert DeNiro, Jack Huston) and their crooked attorney (Paul Herman); and an array of Congressmen eager to grant political favors in exchange for generous “campaign contributions.” And, as events unfold and plans go wildly astray, the results give new meaning to concept of “the best laid plans of mice and men.”

The conscious creation experiences of this film’s characters shine a very bright light on the notion of intent and what underlies our manifestation efforts. The beliefs we employ in materializing our existence get reflected back to us with sparkling clarity, even if we’re not always clear about what those beliefs inherently involve. So, if we willfully engage in intentional acts of deception, as Irving, Sydney and, ultimately, Richie do, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that the results we realize are in line with that thinking, the outcomes often containing elements where the deceivers themselves wind up deceived. The aftermath of that can make for some

These circumstances thus lend considerable credence to the importance of integrity in our creative efforts, particularly when it comes to striving for the results we desire. If we fudge the essence of our beliefs, for example, we’ll attain outcomes commensurate with such obfuscation, for better or worse. And, if we’re truly honest with ourselves, this really shouldn’t come as any surprise, either, yet it’s amazing how often we’re shocked when we get precisely what we put forth. Nevertheless, as consciousness pioneer Jane Roberts often wrote, we get what we concentrate upon. That’s frequently a painful lesson for the film’s protagonists, but it’s especially devastating for Carmine, who periodically engages in willful wrongdoings, even when he knows better, because he assumes such acts are just part of how things get done. He justifies his conduct by holding fast to the belief that it’s sincerely intended to serve an allegedly higher purpose, but these actions still raise all sorts of thorny questions about the ends justifying the means.

By contrast, the one character in the film who’s unabashedly truthful to herself is Rosalyn. She knows what she wants and doesn’t hesitate to make her wishes known, no matter how embarrassing, inconvenient or undermining the expression of her intents may be to others. She knows she’s in touch with this notion, too, even going so far as to brag about having read a book on the subject written by Wayne Dyer (a fan I’m sure he never knew he had!). And, in Rosalyn’s efforts to operate from her own sense of integrity, she keeps everyone else honest, whether they want to be or not.

It’s ironic that these issues come up so pointedly for these characters, especially since, on some level, most of them are legitimately seeking to reinvent themselves. However, the act of genuine reinvention requires sincerity and truthfulness, personal qualities these players seriously lack. With little or no experience in this area, their attempts at making such changes ultimately represent major life lessons for them. And, in that regard, one probably can’t fault them for any of their efforts that go awry since such foibles are an intrinsic part of their learning curves. For their sake, though, one can only hope that they learn from their missteps and make real forward progress.

All of the foregoing considerations make clear just how important it is for us to get in touch with the tools available to us to aid in our personal evolution, particularly our intuition. Not only does it help guide us in our own belief formation and manifestation efforts, but it can also provide a valuable hedge against potentially disastrous pitfalls. I’m sure all of the victims of Irving’s scams wish they would have tapped into it before they got taken to the cleaners. But, then again, I’m sure Irving wishes he’d drawn upon it, too, before his

plans, fittingly enough, came back to bite his own posterior. (Would-be scammers take note.)

In my view, “American Hustle” is easily the best picture I’ve seen so far this year. Not only does it make its metaphysical points well, but it’s also an expertly crafted film in virtually every regard. The ensemble of performers is one of the best assembled casts I’ve seen in years, and everybody is terrific in their respective roles (it’s hard to single out anyone in particular, but Bale and Lawrence are especially noteworthy). These stellar portrayals are made possible by the superb writing and the excellent direction of filmmaker David O. Russell, who has arguably turned out his best work in this picture. But, as remarkable as these attributes are, the movie positively nails its take on the ʼ70s in everything from its evocative soundtrack to its tacky clothes and, especially, its hideous hairstyles. The result is a campy, kitschy, nostalgic romp that provides as many laughs through its visuals and its attitude as it does through its many hilarious one-liners. Indeed, as Irving routinely explains to his initiates, “success is in the details,” and that principle is aptly reflected in the filmmaking on display here.

This picture deserves every bit of praise that it earns, and that’s apparent in the many accolades that have already been generously heaped upon it. The film has captured 7 Golden Globe Award nominations, 2 Screen Actors Guild Award nominations and a whopping 13 Critics Choice Award nominations, many of which involve honors for best picture, best director, best screenplay, best acting ensemble, and individual acting nominations for all of the principals, particularly Bale and Lawrence. But, considering the quality involved, it’s easy to see why.

Qualities like integrity and truthfulness are often the first casualties in manifestation efforts governed by self-serving expediency, even when veiled in fabricated attitudes that seemingly espouse the contrary. However, if we’re ever to attain what we truly say we desire, those absent traits must be put into place. Failing on this front can carry grave consequences, as the Abscam offenders painfully found out for themselves. And so, to that end, then, as anyone who grew up in the disco era of the ʼ70s well knows, “hustling” is something best left for the dance floor, not the dance of life.

It can be easy to let our fears get the best of us. And it can be even harder to shake them once we allow them to settle in and become comfortable. But rising above these self-imposed limitations is crucial if ever we hope to get by in life, even under the most trying of circumstances, a notion explored in the new cinematic blockbuster, “The Hunger Games.”

Life is full of stark contrasts in Panem, a dystopian future version of North America that consists of a grandiose Capitol and 12 impoverished outlying districts whose principal reason for being seems to be supplying the opulence and ostentation of its principal metropolis and the government of President Snow (Donald Sutherland). Having come into being as a result of a prolonged bloody conflict, this Roman-esque empire portrays itself as benevolent but never hesitates to resort to authoritarian tactics to keep the provinces in line. Its principal means of controlling the population is through a brutal spectacle known as the Hunger Games, a “competition” in which two teenage “tributes” (one male, one female) are selected via compulsory lottery from each of the districts to do battle with one another until only one is left standing, all of it broadcast with much fanfare on TV. It’s “entertainment” akin to the Christians being thrown to the lions, only with more elaborate production values.

When the contestant selection process begins for the 74th annual edition of the Games, young Primrose Everdeen (Willow Shields) is eligible to represent District 12 for the first time, a prospect that frightens her terribly – especially when her name is called. In an act of supreme self-sacrifice, Prim’s older sister, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), volunteers to take the place of her younger sibling. Upon her acceptance as a stand-in, Katniss and fellow District 12 tribute Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) are transported to the Capitol for their date with destiny, an odyssey that will bring them more than they ever could have expected.

In preparation for the Games, Katniss and Peeta are trained by former champion Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson), and their public personas are packaged and promoted by a team of image handlers, including Cinna (Lenny Kravitz) and Effie (Elizabeth Banks). They’re also paraded – literally – before eager audiences of fanatic spectators in a variety of pre-competition festivities, culminating in appearances on a wildly popular talk show hosted by flamboyant emcee Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci).

Despite her initial contempt for the entire proceeding, Katniss’s icy veneer slowly thaws, unwittingly charming fans and potential “sponsors,” benefactors capable of providing valuable assistance during the Games. But, despite Katniss’s big splash with spectators, Peeta makes an equally huge impression when he publicly declares his longstanding unrequited love for his fellow tribute, providing an additional twist on the already-overhyped spectacle, a revelation that’s news even to Katniss. It’s also an unexpected distraction for the unlikely heroine, piling on more stress at a time when it’s needed least.

With the advance festivities complete, the Games get under way in a forested arena fitted with cleverly camouflaged cameras and state-of-the-art playing field modification equipment, all controlled by broadcast director Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley), who’s frequently called upon to script the competition in accordance with President Snow’s wishes. And so the fight to survive begins, an ordeal that includes elements of deception, manipulation, alliance, romance, unexpected rule changes, District pride, defiance, ingenuity, fear and hope, a volatile combination of ingredients that keeps viewers – both on- and off-screen – riveted.

Given the savage nature of the picture’s principal event, anyone with an ounce of civility probably can’t help but wonder why the population of Panem would so willingly tolerate this grotesque abomination. But then, considering the character of the empire’s culture, with its pervasive mantra of rule by fear, I suppose it’s understandable that the citizens have been scared into state-sanctioned compliance. But must they be?

Fear, for what it’s worth, can be a tremendous motivator to compel a person (or a population) into a desired form of behavior. However, regrettable as that might be, this wouldn’t happen if those being targeted didn’t buy into these circumstances in the first place. For better or worse, the targets’ beliefs materialize the reality they experience – even if they aren’t aware of them – through the conscious creation process, and they must, consequently, live with the fallout of that manifestation – that is, until they decide to change the beliefs driving their creations.

In light of that, explorations of fear-based beliefs contribute significantly to the unfolding of the picture’s narrative and its underlying themes. It’s perhaps most prevalent in the film’s depiction of the behavior of Panem’s population. Given the protracted history of conflict that existed prior to the empire’s establishment, a war-weary citizenry was so desperate for peace that it was willing to do whatever was necessary to achieve it, even if that meant embracing strong-arm tactics that required trading individual liberty for personal security. The culture of fear that grew out of those circumstances gradually came to be accepted as a necessary evil, a belief that was perpetually reinforced by the state’s practices and the population’s capitulation. (Does any of this sound remotely familiar?)

Omnipresent armed peacekeepers, fenced-in district borders and hovering observation vehicles are all employed to keep citizens in line. But the Games are perhaps the most effective means of control, especially among the young, thanks to the ever-present threat of being selected as a contestant. The fear that this spectacle engenders keeps the population subdued and malleable, with those who go unselected being eternally grateful for the odds having fallen in their favor. Such circumstances serve to chill any thoughts of rising up, questioning authority and asserting individuality. And the state knows this, doing all it can to encourage it.

President Snow (Donald Sutherland, left), the soft-spoken but autocratic leader of Panem, confers with television director Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley, right) about the unfolding of events in the savage sporting competition known as "The Hunger Games." Photo by Murray Close, courtesy of Lionsgate Entertainment.

Of course, the population need not be perpetually saddled these conditions. Change is always possible as long as beliefs allowing it are brought into play. And that’s where our heroine and hero come in; they embody the notion of overcoming their fears, not only as a means to promote their own survival but also to provide an inspiring example to the viewers of their ordeal, showing them that they need not remain under the thumb of imperial authoritarianism.

Getting past one’s fears and moving on to live heroically is an aspect of conscious creation philosophy that’s often undervalued, yet it’s crucial to forward movement. Without it, personal growth and development sputters, stifles and stagnates, keeping us from reaching our true potential. As I have often said, those who stay stuck in fear stay stuck in place.

Thankfully, Katniss and Peeta help show their constituents the way forward. In doing so, they also help to show that change is possible for anyone, not just a select few who are at the helm of power. However, achieving this, like overcoming fear, is only possible when one believes it to be true. Through their actions – some of which are highly unconventional – the protagonists set an example, not only for their fellow citizens but also for those of us on the other side of the screen.

The protagonists’ most effective weapon against these circumstances is the hope they inspire, a force whose power even the President recognizes. He’s even willing to allow a little of it to keep the spirit of viewing audiences from becoming totally atrophied (but not enough, of course, to elicit unwanted beliefs and actions). Imagine what’s possible, however, when hope-based beliefs are unleashed in sufficient strength on a population craving to shed their shackles and undermine the tactics of the fear mongers. Now that’s a game changer.

With each passing day, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) must struggle to stay alive in "The Hunger Games." Photo by Murray Close, courtesy of Lionsgate Entertainment.

While “The Hunger Games” does an excellent job of conveying its main themes, it has its shortcomings, too. The story line, for example, is a bit predictable and derivative, combining elements from a variety of sources we’ve seen before, including “Rollerball” (1975), “The Truman Show” (1998), “Brave New World” (1998) and the reality series Survivor (this may be due to the nature of the source material, but it’s present in the screen version nevertheless). The pacing is also uneven at times, especially in the first half, and some of the production values, like costume design and makeup, are a bit over the top (think “A Clockwork Orange” (1971) meets “The Fifth Element” (1997) meets RuPaul’s Drag Race). And since the book that this is based on is part of a trilogy, sequels are already in the works, leaving viewers of this installment with a somewhat unsatisfying conclusion that’s both somewhat ambivalent and full of unanswered questions.

Despite this, however, the film holds one’s attention well. Even though it’s easy to see how the story will play out, the route it takes to get there is full of suspenseful twists and turns. Its excellent cinematography, visual effects and fine performances (especially by Lawrence, Harrelson and Tucci) make for entertaining viewing. I was also pleased that the picture was not overly gratuitous; given the nature of the narrative, the film easily could have become a nauseating gore-fest, but, thankfully, the filmmakers resisted this temptation, keeping the imagery appropriately in context without becoming visually assaulting.

When faced with the impending loss of a loved one a number of years ago, I was fearful of what was about to come. The attending physician could see this and pulled me aside, saying “when there’s life, there’s hope.” And even though we both knew what the outcome of this situation was going to be, his words helped me conquer my fears to face the ordeal. So it is also with a downtrodden people beset by many perils who become inspired by the actions of a courageous few who give them the hope to press on. “The Hunger Games” delivers on that point, and one can only hope that audiences are paying attention.

Be The First to Know

Email address:

Leave this field empty if you're human:

My VividLife, Episode 1: Equine Therapy with Jennifer Schramm

Shayne Traviss

Sometime's growth involves digging up the dirt and planting anew...
After over 20 years of marketing, promoting and producing others I've decided to open a new chapter in my life.
If you long to go higher, live a life 'all in' join me as I dive in deep sharing my life experiences, travels and inspirations for living a VividLife.

Follow Me On Instagram

About VividLife.me

Founded by Shayne Traviss formerly VividLife.me was an online resource for personal growth through over 10,000 blogs, audio conversations and videos, from thought leaders, best-selling authors and wellness experts from around the globe. VividLife.me provided engaging conversations on consciousness and human potential with Arianna Huffington, Jane Fonda and Alanis Morrissette, wisdom packed blogs from spiritual Icons Iyanla Vanzant and Ram Dass, Green Tips from David Suzuki’s Queen of Green, Advice from Award Winning Parenting and Relationships Experts, Recipes from Vegetarian, Vegan, Raw Chef’s and more… and reached and inspired over 3 million people around the globe.
However sometime's growth involves digging up the dirt and planting anew...
And after over 20 years of marketing, promoting and producing others Shayne Traviss decided to open a new chapter in his life.
If you long to go higher, live a life 'all in' join him as he dives in deep sharing his life experiences, travels and inspirations for living a VividLife.